Blockchain Fork Processing with Leader Proof and Voting Equality
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing blockchain systems face issues with fork processing that violate the equality principle, leading to dominance of longer blockchains over shorter ones, and existing consensus mechanisms are not suitable for lightweight terminal devices due to high computational requirements and vulnerabilities from byzantine nodes.
Innovation Solution
A fork processing method and blockchain node design that incorporates leader-elected transactions, voting-based participant analysis, and secure time proofs to ensure equal treatment of blockchain branches, using a trusted execution environment to prevent malicious forking and reduce energy consumption.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If existing consensus mechanisms are used to determine block generation qualification, then fork processing can be performed, but the equality principle of blockchains is violated because longer blockchains have absolute advantage
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies equipotentiality by introducing leader proof and voting mechanisms that give equal weighting to different blockchain branches regardless of their length. Each node votes on branch validity based on cryptographic proofs rather than chain length, creating an equal playing field where short and long chains have equal opportunity to be selected as the main chain.
2Reliability
If traditional consensus mechanisms are used, then fork processing is possible, but computational requirements are too high for lightweight terminal devices
Solution Approach 1:
The patent extracts the heavy computational consensus verification from terminal devices and concentrates it in head nodes. Terminal devices only need to generate and verify lightweight leader proofs, while the computationally intensive voting and branch validation are performed by head nodes with sufficient computing power, significantly reducing energy consumption for mobile devices.
Solution Approach 2:
Head nodes act as intermediaries between terminal devices and the blockchain network. They aggregate votes from multiple terminals and perform the heavy consensus computation, allowing energy-constrained devices to participate in consensus without directly performing resource-intensive operations.
3Productivity
If traditional consensus mechanisms are used, then block generation can be performed, but the system is vulnerable to malicious forking by byzantine nodes
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements preliminary action by requiring nodes to cast votes and provide cryptographic proofs before a block is finalized and added to the main chain. The leader proof and voting records are established in advance, allowing the system to detect and reject malicious forks before they can compromise the blockchain integrity.
Solution Approach 2:
The voting mechanism provides continuous feedback on branch validity. Each node's vote serves as a feedback signal about the legitimacy of a particular branch, and the aggregation of these feedback signals allows the network to identify and eliminate malicious forks through the majority voting rule.
Data Source
AI summary
A block generation method and apparatus for blockchain networks. The method includes that when a first blockchain node is a leader, the first blockchain node packs a leader-elected transaction in a transaction pool into a first block, where the leader-elected transaction records a leader proof of the first blockchain node. The leader proof records a voting state in which each of the plurality of second blockchain nodes votes on the first blockchain node, and the voting state indicates whether a vote is a positive vote or a negative vote. The first blockchain node sends the first block to the plurality of second blockchain nodes, so that the first blockchain node and/or the second blockchain nodes perform fork processing based on the leader proof.